'Horse lasagne' sold in Co-op, Sandpiper shops

Following the revelation that Findus Beef Lasagne was, in some cases, 100% horse, two local stores have withdrawn the product from sale.

Both the Co-op and Sandpiper, which sold it via Checkers Xpress, Food Hall and Iceland outlets, said they had until recently stocked the product.

The Co-op withdrew the items on Monday and Sandpiper on Tuesday.

A Sandpiper spokesman said: ‘I do not know why it is only just being reported in the media today [Friday] – we were advised by our suppliers on Tuesday to remove the product.’

The Co-Op is offering a full refund to customers who have brought a Findus Beef Lasagne. Simply return it to the store.

Comments for: "'Horse lasagne' sold in Co-op, Sandpiper shops"

Donkey's Wotsits

February 9, 2013 10:35 am

The only issue here is that the consumer was mislead. I wouldn't have a problem eating horse meat if it was listed on the ingredients - no different to cows, pigs, sheep etc. Only society has made us think it's undesirable.

blondie

Dani

February 9, 2013 10:37 am

I would prefer that people were alerted to the fact there was horse meat in them before throwing them all away. That way they could still be sold (although I imagine at a lower price) and not go to waste. I think some (not all) people don't mind it is horse meat and that being mislabeled was more of a concern.

This is only in the event that the horse meat poses no health risk and is fit for human consumption. By this I mean just ensure that the horses have not been fed drugs/chemicals that we would be opposed to ingesting.

victorhulein

February 9, 2013 10:44 am

dear public, horsemeat being used in processed meat has been a supermarkets way of offering a range of products cheap enough to lure customers away from the dwindling numbers of highstreet butchers .your local butcher will sell you his wares with pride ,the supermarket has only one interest your money!!!.an old market butcher used to say of supermarkets :never mind the quality feel the width:so public you get what you pay for

it use to be good here!!

Shergar

February 9, 2013 11:12 am

I cannot see what all the fuss is about - our continental brothers and sisters tuck into Dobbin on a regular basis and they don't seem any the worse for the experience. After all, it is a food item and, from memory , tastes very little different to beef and when dressed up as Lasagne is probably indistinguishable from the horned variety.

Island Wide voting

PLP

Island Wide voting

February 9, 2013 3:09 pm

I would be very surprised if Findus didn't take a big hit over this customer-wise in the UK

I know that myself and two of my relatives refuse to purchase any foodstuffs bearing a Bernard Matthews label ever since the 2007 bird flu scare,and of course the pictures of the two employees playing baseball with live Turkeys

Horse lover

February 9, 2013 7:05 pm

In France, and I assume other European countries where horse meat is regularly eaten, all horses have an identification paper. When a horse is administered with a vaccine or other substance by a vet, the vet has to endorse the papers to the effect that the aminal is excluded from human consumption. Meat breeders are well aware of this and avoid treating their animals with anything that may devalue them and render them only fit for dog food etc.

In Britain, where horse meat is rarely offered for human consumption, there is little or no farming of horses and vets don't always endorse papers. Most horses that go to slaughter are failed or retired racehorses, elderly, lame or just plain unwanted pets. Most of these will, at some time in therir lives have been treated with medications that render them unsafe for human food. They are mostly destined for pet food, glue, fertiliser, etc.

The concern is that if a supplier is unscrupulous enough to supply horse meat masquerading as beef, it is not unlikely that they are also unscrupulous enough to supply horse meat which should be barred, on health grounds, from human consumption.

Peter

February 9, 2013 7:39 pm

That’s why the wise shop at Waitrose they have their own farms so all the meat is guaranteed to be what it says on the labels. I Never shop at rip off supermarkets that put eight pence on the price of food and then give you four pence back.

Amary

February 9, 2013 9:52 pm

I can't understand why anyone is surprised about this 'story'. Surely everyone knows that cheap processed meat contains all manner of 'nasties'. Horse meat is probably one of the more innocuous substances in your burger/frozen lasagne. You get what you pay for; if you buy cheap and nasty you get cheap and nasty. If you are worried about what you are eating, don't buy cheap processed food.

VQ

stonedecroze

Sarah Lowe

February 10, 2013 3:29 pm

They may have removed the lasagne but I laughed when I saw that Fundus 'minced "beef"' crispy pancakes at Co op st Andrews just now....not that i'd have bought them anyway(!) I'd put money on them having questionable contents as well as the lasagne, after all, have all products been tested?

soph

valeite

February 11, 2013 9:30 am

Yes Sarah I agree can you really believe that Lasagne is the only dish that contains horse meat, I can just hear the factory saying "That beast over there is just to be used for Lasagne nothing else and I mean nothing else" come on get real what about, chilli, shepherds pie, cottage pie, spag bol, even mousska, a lot of those meals taste like the box they come in so who would notice.

Alan

Whoa there!!

Scarlett

February 11, 2013 1:40 pm

It is worth nothing, that, as I suspected, the source of this horse meat is dodgy (cheap), ie, (and I quote), 'endemically diseased horses from Romania'.

Take away the moral aspect of whether eating horse flesh is right or wrong, and you're still left with a company that's making a lot of money whilst flagrantly ignoring the Trades Description Act as well as ignoring the health and safety implications of eating diseased meat that may have, prior to what was quite possibly a horribly inhumane death, been treated with a variety of meds that remain in it post mortem and are not intended for human consumption.

I have never bought anything with minced up 'mystery meat' in it, and never will, and quite frankly, the 'what the hell I'll eat anything, hahaha' comments on here shows a distinct lack of understanding and discerning pallet than the supposed 'lesser species' on this planet possess.....

on the positive side, perhaps this is just the Darwin Theory in action.

Jeff

Lets face it, I think the horse meat is probably the least of your worries after eating ready meals like that.

They are full of rubbish to give the best shelf-life not to mention food replacements that may taste good (apparently) but don't do anything for you nutritionally.

I hope people stop buying this type of tripe (probably better to eat tripe!) and start making their own food - there is no excuse as we are all busy but ultimately would we put a load of rubbish into our cars fuel tank rather than petrol/diesel?

Just because a food has received the Food Standards Agency seal of approval doesn't mean it's good for us - who pays for the FSA? Hmmm.....

forest

forest

February 11, 2013 7:02 pm

Anybody who eats ready meals should FINALLY realise that what they are buying is basically sh-*t in a box. Sorry but there's no other word for it, it' utter garbage designed for people who don't care about where their food comes from or what they put in their bodies.

rosie

February 11, 2013 7:13 pm

This story is symptomatic of the cheap food industry. These low-priced ready meals are made of ingredients sourced from all corners of the globe, based purely on price. Quality, nutritional value, animal welfare play no part in the process. It is all about getting something onto the shelf at the cheapest price. By the time the ingredients are 'assembled' into a dish, they have been through multiple countries and processed through several different 'suppliers', each adding their own goodness knows what. Obviously, by the end, the retailer isn't going to have a clue just exactly what's in it or where the various bits originated from. And as others have already suggested, I doubt that it is just the meat that is dodgy.

The irony is, that if eating food is about refuelling your body with nutrients needed to function effectively, this 'cheap' processed food is probably hideously expensive since the nutritional benefits are so few when compared to a meal made with fresh ingredients. Meat doesn't have to be eaten every day. In my opinion, I would rather have it just occasionally but then know I am eating the real deal and getting all the benefits.

rosie

February 12, 2013 9:27 am

Depending on how the meat is raised. Pasture raised meat is much higher in vitamins and omega 3's than meat raised on grain. Western diets have unbalanced our ratio of omega 6's & 3's ( we are short of the 3's) which it is believed has led to many of the modern day diseases. I recommend reading The Carbon Fields by Graham Harvey- the second chapter details the science behind why pasture fed meat (& milk) is good for us and has been unfairly demonised. It is also a farming method that is heaps better for the soil and general environment since it is all based on perennial grasses that do not require artificial in-puts or yearly ploughing.

Oh Dear

February 12, 2013 9:28 am

I think a bit more research might be needed there Guern Abroad. Human beings are designed to eat meat. (look at your teeth). My Gran has been eating teeth her whole life. She's 98, she doesn't have osteoporosis, cancer and she's never had a heart attack.

PLP

guern abroad

February 12, 2013 11:14 am

Teeth oh you mean those teeth that are not able to tear or serate meat with a jaw that has too much movement for strength but is designed to grind. Our guts are also not designed for meat they are too long and too slow.

Moderation is a very miss used word as it means different volumes for different people.

Perhaps your gran also was not weaned onto milk or processed foods so most likely had a huge head start on not getting sick, which is great for you and your family.

Oh Dear

February 13, 2013 11:15 am

L'eree Lad, I wasn't trying to find an article to back my claim. I was trying to find one that was fair (in a limited time scale). It probably wasn't the best article. For every article that says that humans are designed to eat meat there is another one that claims the opposite. Unfortunately it is a very biased subject.

Humans may not have the speed to catch prey, the perfect carnivorous tooth and jaw set up and eating raw meat will make us sick. Humans have learnt to adapt and evolve. We learnt to cook food (some vegetables are poisonous to us in their raw state). We can eat steak raw then of course humans can eat sushi. They do not make people sick.

Humans are hugely adaptable and very intelligent, we can survive almost any climate due to the invention of clothing. Biologists believe the soul reason for our brains growing so large is due to the high levels of proteins found in meat.

As for your iron levels Guern abroad, you can of course find it in other foods (spinach). I'm not saying a diet should consist of just meat. I'm saying the best diet is one that is balanced and omnivorous.

Spartacus

February 13, 2013 11:59 am

Oh Dear

Thanks for the links.

I agree with your conclusions that the human body adapted from a vegetarian diet to be able to eat meat and the increased energy this allowed early humans to intake may have helped them to evolve and possibly enable them to become more intelligent.

However the food options available to humans back then were not as varied and plentiful as a typical western human has access to today. Our intelligence and access to food now allows us to make better educated choices and obtain all the nutrients for optimal health without the need for meat at all.

Your third article concludes "the best arguments in support of a meat-free diet remain ecological, ethical, and health concerns." I agree with this.

The thrust of my argument is that the current government health advice is to decrease red meat intake and to avoid processed red meat altogether. There is scientific consensus in agreement with this advice and I doubt you would be able to find any article since last summer which contradicts this.

Raw steak eg steak tartar is controversial and is not recommended for those with reduced immunity. It is mixed with other foods designed to kill bacteria. Raw fish can be eaten due to the salt from the sea which reduces bacteria.

Just because we can eat meat does not mean it is an intelligent modern choice for optimal health and in future this choice will continue to come under question for health, ethical and ecological reasons.

rosie

February 12, 2013 9:43 am

Spartacus. The reply I have made above could just as easily have been made in response to your post which I have only just seen. Since you are obviously an avid reader, you should try the book I have suggested there. I found it very interesting and it tested many of my thoughts on meat but I thought that it made such good sense on many levels. Health, environment, soil degradation, growing economies, climate change etc.

Meat per se is not the problem..... it is the way that it is produced that is and meat that is intensively / cheaply reared should be avoided. Having said that, I still think that even good quality meat should be eaten in moderation.

Oh Dear

February 12, 2013 9:35 am

Claiming that meat farming is a big contributor to CO2 is a lazy way of saying "I don't want to give up my car". Meat farming was around centuries before the car/industrial revoloution that environmentalists claim is the cause for climate change.

Red meat is NOT detrimental to human health, see my post above. In moderation it's good, high in iron and protein both of which are essential vitamins for us omnivores.

Processed meat isn't recommended due to the fact you never know what you might find. Hence the article being written in the first place.

Horse meat is absolutely beautiful.

I don't think horse is overly taboo in our culture. Most of my friends would eat it quite happily. It's the media blowing things out of proportion.

Most people know that processed meat if full of garbage, they'd just rather not know what the garbage is. If anyone is shocked at all by this story must be very naive.

Ed

February 12, 2013 11:08 am

Oh Dear

I tend to agree with you on what you say about red meat being consumed in moderation, but large scale agriculture, that has been taking place for a couple of hundred years and even more so in recent decades in countries such as India, has been a major source of greenhouse gas emissions, but for methane more so, due to the activity of anaerobic bacteria on livestock guts. The great extent of such agricultural practices, especially in southern Asia, in order to suffice food demands for a rising population, has made the effects so large. Then again, another major cause of methane was the anaerobic conditions created in the waterlogged rice padi fields in nations such as India and Thailand.

I do agree in part with Spartacus for the transportation of meat products does release carbon dioxide, yet sources of methane require particular monitoring as this gas is 23 times more potent than CO2.

Spartacus

I'm not an environmentalist, I lean towards the skeptical side of the fence. However, it seems to be a factor which many carnivorous environmentalists choose to ignore.

There was a lot of publicity about the detrimental effects of red meat following the latest research results last year. Clearly production of red meat is in conflict with the aims of HSSD so I do not understand how the public funding of a modern abattoir is justifiable.

Oh Dear

February 12, 2013 11:42 am

Red meat is good or bad depending on which sources you look at. The ultimate conclusion is to not eat it daily. Eat it in moderation as part of a balanced diet and it's quite good for you. As I mentioned before it's a good source of essential nutrients.

As for the production of greenhouse gases from livestock. Cows have been farting for god knows how long. We're still technically in an ice age. It was also proven recently that the Earth isn't warming up as quickly as first thought. They've even revised their figures.

Check out the amount of CO2 the Icelandic volcano spewed out a few years ago. It produced more CO2 than all of the flights it grounded.

Spartacus

February 12, 2013 12:42 pm

Oh Dear

Your link is from 2006 therefore long outdated by the latest research.

As I said, I'm on the skeptical side of the global warming debate as climate change is a natural process which has always occurred however those who are concerned about the contribution to the process by mankind ought to consider the drastic increase in global meat farming and all the factors involved which increase the CO2 from the methane produced by the livestock to the farming methods and transportation.

As the global population rises in the decades to come (some experts suggests it could double in 40 years) I believe the proportion of meat consumed must decrease in order to sustain a rising global population. Land must be better used to maximise food production and this means more arable crops.

Most carnivores I know eat meat on a daily basis and often for 2 or more meals. Their portion sizes are usually at least double the recommended quantity and they believe that this is "moderation". If a meal lacks meat they feel deprived. It's a culture which needs to change in my opinion.

Martino

February 12, 2013 2:37 pm

More muddled thinking from Spartacus. The only way to meet the challenge of a rising world population is to take measures to stop that human population explosion, not to fiddle around the edges trying to force people onto horrible vegan diets. What we need now is enforced birth control measures in the parts of the world where the population is exploding. In our part of the world it is pretty much under control.

Martino

Ed

February 12, 2013 3:56 pm

Martino

You argue that forcing people to adopt vegetarian, or indeed vegan, diets is a drastic measure that infringes upon one's private life, well so is restricting the number of children one gives birth to. Nevertheless, the rather unfavourable situation that the human population has manoeuvred itself into through increased people on the planet means that rather drastic measures have to be taken to control the source of the problem ( lowering the birth rate) and to enable us toadapt to contextual changes ( adopting alternative diets, sustainable food consumption) brought about by the problem.

I advocate the concept of balance; a combination of mitigation and adaptation.

rosie

February 12, 2013 4:41 pm

Spartacus. I have yet to meet anyone who is concerned about climate change who doesn't know that climate change is a natural process that is always evolving... slowly! It really is stating the obvious!

What isn't a 'natural process' is the burning of billions of years of accumulated carbon in the form of fossil fuels and chucking it all up into the atmosphere in the blink of an eye (in geological terms) to see what happens. We do know that CO2 has a greenhouse effect... its why we are able to live here. We are living through a huge experiment and not all experiments turn out well!

Martino

February 12, 2013 6:24 pm

I can see the point you are making Ed but I think you know that drastic measures are needed to curb our human population growth. Very drastic measures. Getting people to change their diets or even changing the way they farm is not going to cut it. The Catholics, Islamists and other human breeding fanatics are the real problem here. Hopefully the new pope will not spout the same anti birth control mumbo jumbo as that old fool Ratzinger. Better stop right there though. I am wandering onto the subject of another thread now.

Spartacus

Ok so maybe on this occasion human activity is contributing more than it ever has before and maybe we are speeding up the process but maybe that just means we are suppressing the next ice age?

If we are heading for an imminent calamity, and this is debatable, whether we should try to avoid it is also debatable. Nevertheless I do my bit for the sake of my children and grandchildren even if the problem of adaptation and will then fall upon their grandchildren instead.

My point is that climate change is ultimately unavoidable and if you are looking to make a real difference by curtailing human activity, this will only happen when the major contributors to the problem, eg China, make huge changes. Global cultural changes in diet and food production would also make a real difference.

I totally disagree that what humans are doing is not a ‘natural process’. I've watched enough Brian Cox programmes to know that everything that happens in the universe is a natural process! Humans are not as important or as powerful as we think we are!

Martino

February 12, 2013 11:32 pm

That takes the vegan biscuit Spartacus. If you think I'm naive what does that make you with your utopian vision of a world population of 9 billion, every one of them with plenty to eat in this plant chewer's paradise, no hunger anywhere despite being crammed like sardines onto this small planet because going veggie will save us all? Get real woman, you are living in a fantasy land. The truth of the matter is that people in the developing world are turning AWAY from vegetarianism, not towards it.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-asia-21322499

As for guern abroad you may have the recipe for living until 100 but you are wrong with your anti meat crusade. The human species has been adapting for thousands of years to an omnivorous lifestyle. The classic Mediterranean diet which has a definite meat element as well as a strong dairy element is the best non faddy diet known to man and woman. Carry on with your bland uncooked fare but I know which side my bread is buttered.

Yes we can agree that processed food is the worst but you can keep your extreme diet to yourself. When you boil it down it is nothing more than a peculiar indulgence you simply don't see in healthier southern European communities. Moderation in everything and a little bit of what you fancy.

Oh Dear

February 12, 2013 3:55 pm

The link may be slightly old but it still rings true.

I'm sure further research will pull up pretty similar results.

I agree that people consume too much red meat. I completely agree with you about the population putting a huge strain on our resources. Humans have been eating meat for as long as they've been around. Archeological digs on neolithic sites have proved that people were eating meat.

It's an important part of our diet. Those that say we are not designed to eat meat, clearly don't know too much about biology.

I probably eat too much meat but I only eat red meat about twice a week. Red meat is the one that can cause problems if it's overly consumed.

I have to agree with Martino on the population control side of things. Measures definitely need to be put in place. But it's a very difficult and controversial thing to enforce. Obviously we can not follow in the foot steps of the Chinese and the one child policy, which was by all accounts barbaric.

Those that enjoy eating meat won't exchange it for a vegetarian diet, just as we would not expect you to start eating meat.

Ed

February 12, 2013 10:56 pm

Spartacus

It is rational to suggest that global warming may suppress a naturallly occurring ice age, yet the existence of positive and negative feedback mechanisms, questionable historical proxy records, the influence of natural phenomena and the inability to know the degree of international action that will be taken makes that claim debatable. Paradoxically, this apparent warming episode may trigger a cooling period ( an ice age within a larger glacial epoch), or at least some degree of cooling, as the atmosphere, since it is generally warmer, can retain more moisture, which has been reonsible for some portions of the Antarctic ice sheet being thickened.

More significantly, a general increase in atmospheric heat is causing the Greenland ice sheet to melt, which means that fresh melt water enters the briny oceans and disrupts the North Atlantic 'Conveyor' (the phenomenon that provides us with a temperate climate) by reducing the salinity, and therefore density, of the water falling towards the bottom of the ocean, thereby reducing the rate at which the cold return current cycles water to the south Atlantic and so the rate at which warm water is cycled up towards where we live. As a result, the North Atlantic experiences cold conditions, which may be sufficient to activate positive feedback mechanisms that will cause moderate cooling to escalate into intense cooling (near ice age conditions).

rosie

February 12, 2013 4:16 pm

Oh Dear. Meat farming might have been around for centuries but not in its current form. Traditional farming methods based on perennial grass and herb rich pastures did not cause the problems we are seeing today. Modern farming is overwhelmingly based on annual plants which require replanting every year requiring huge amounts of oil-energy in the form of nitrate fertilisers, pesticides, diesel fuel etc. Apparently the worlds top 10 food crops are annuals and they occupy 80% of the world's cultivated land.

The worlds soils are the largest terrestrial reservoir of carbon- 3 times as much as is in the atmosphere and over 4 times the amount in all the vegetation. As we all know, the burning of fossil fuels is adding excessive carbon to the atmosphere, but a considerable amount also comes from intensive annual grain growing, a good deal of which is done to feed the meat industry.

While I agree that meat in moderation is good for us, that is only the case if the animal was raised primarily on mixed perennial grasses.

As I said earlier, we should be asking for pasture raised meat and enjoying the real deal.

Martino

February 12, 2013 10:29 am

Well said Rosie and Oh Dear in answer to the veggie propaganda from Spartacus. I actually agree with Scarlett too despite being one of the 'ha ha I'll eat anything' posters.

The bottom line is that all processed food is questionable muck and I would argue that some of the veggie crap eg the inedible vegan stodge with Linda McCartney's name on it, high on salts and sugars and fats, is actually worse for you than a Findus horse and grizzle lasagne as well as not so satisfying.

This is why we need an up to date modern abbatoir - to process high quality unadulterated locally produced meats of all descriptions. Yum yum, bring it on.

PLP

February 12, 2013 11:19 am

Sparty - private enterprise benefits from public funding all the time. What makes the abattoir different?

PS I've never understood vegetarian food that is made to taste like meat. A few years back I decided to go one month without eating meat. It was quite a nice change to be introduced to some different flavours.

Spartacus

February 12, 2013 12:57 pm

PLP

Other expenditure which benefits private enterprise must be justifiable as being for public benefit too. My argument here is that the abattoir does not benefit the public as red meat is bad for you. Instead of being subsidised red meat should be taxed as a deterrent and the users should pay for the building of the abattoir.

guern abroad

February 12, 2013 11:25 am

Taste for meat is what the taste of the sauce, grilling, burning or seasoning added to the meat.

Who goes and kills, tears and munches on their meat carcass? Exactly, eating meat is easy to get over any aversion feelings as it is so detatched from a walking, breathing animal and more like a packet of pre prepared slab of something that you cook becuase you don't eat it raw and if you do eat it raw you bury it in seasoning and mince it so your teeth can manage to eat it.

Martino

February 12, 2013 11:35 am

Have you ever tasted meat Spartacus?

The Linda McCartney stuff, like most of this veggie burger type muck, tastes like nothing of the sort. More like badly flavoured cardboard chippings bound together with wood glue. The only time I tried it I had to spit it out. Yeuk!!!

Martino

February 12, 2013 2:45 pm

Yes, I'd agree with you there, except I think it was Nigella Lawson who described food as 'one of the voluptuous pleasures in life'. You can bet she wasn't thinking about a nut cutlet when she said that! I certainly wasn't !!

rosie

Oh Dear

February 13, 2013 1:14 pm

I think you hit the nail on the head there Spartacus.

"Food is primarily for nutrition, however modern culture means we use it as a source of pleasure."

Ancient human beings would've been eating meat for nutrition. They couldn't afford to be fussy. A vegetarian diet can work in this day and age due to the fact that fruit and veg is so widely available. You can pop to the local supermarket and get produce from all around the world. In the past people would not have had this luxury. They had to eat what they could get their hands on. This meant that we evolved as omnivorous animals.

Red meat is not bad for people. If it was people wouldn't have eaten it in the first place.

Look up info regarding eating meat and our own evoloution. Biologists claim that the reason for our large brains is from eating meat. Carnivores tend to be more intelligent in the animal kingdom than herbivores (there are obviously exceptions).

Oh and that last comment was in no way meant to offend any vegetarians using this site. It was merely an observation made about the animal kingdom as opposed to humans.

guern abroad

February 12, 2013 11:22 am

I agree any processed food is slop be it with some form of animal derivitive or veggy crap and in fact the worst of all is fake vegan food. A fake vegan sausage is just as bad as a fatty meat suasage in fact worse form a cancer perspective as it has highly processed soya protien isolates.

islander

Island Wide Voting

February 13, 2013 9:31 am

Hard to tell if this has any connection with this thread but yesterday I purchased a rack of spare ribs,on a BOGOF offer from a supermarket not far from ... well,not far from anywhere really on this tiny rock ( unless you have to go by bus)... and I couldn't get them to fit into my bag for life!

They were almost three feet long.Apart from the size they looked like the genuine article so I'm looking forward to having them for lunch,having grilled one end at a time in my standard oven

Island Wide Voting

February 14, 2013 7:14 pm

Managed to finally polish off the last of the ribs at teatime today

No side effects as far as I can see,except that when my grandson asked me how many hundreds of thousands Mr Rice has secretly handed over to AFR Advocates I tapped my right foot on the ground five times

Scarlett

Interestingly, I've been a veggie for many years, and though firm in my beliefs, I also believe everyone has a right to choose.

Preaching - from either side of the veggie/non veggie fence - is utterly pointless, so I don't ever bother, just live my life the way I want to live it and let others do their thing.

Despite this, I have had countless experiences over the years in various social venues where complete strangers feel entitled to grill me (if you'll pardon the pun) about the whys and wherefores of my vegginess, and, quite often, tell me all the reasons I'm wrong.

Why they feel entitled to tell me how I should be living my life, or indeed, why what I put in my gob, which affects them not one whit, bothers them so much, is entirely beyond me, and yet still, I don't rise to the bait, remain polite and fail to ask them why they DO eat meat.

I wouldn't be surprised if this is the experience of many veggies and perhaps this would explain some of the militant stances displayed here, but really chaps, there is no point, to the believer, no proof is needed and to the non believer, no proof is enough, just leave it, already.

Oh Dear

February 14, 2013 1:15 pm

I would never ask that at a dinner table. I think it's rude.

I wouldn't seek a debate on the subject as it really is personal choice. The debate further up the page was more about me standing up for myself as someone who eats meat rather than knocking those who do not.

Spartacus

Scarlett

February 15, 2013 9:34 am

ah well, Sparty, fact is, most people still eat meat!

God knows how much of this food source, that could feed people and keep money within the island by generating much needed revenue for local farmers, is literally thrown away each year, whilst we profit farmers and suppliers from 'elsewhere' importing more of it.

Economically speaking, this is a ridiculous situation, and throwing away what many consider perfectly good food, whilst others in the world starve, not really justifiable, so I for one cannot see a reason to object to this....

but still retain my right not to eat it, as one of the fortunate ones who is able to choose.

Spartacus

February 15, 2013 4:44 pm

Scarlett

I totally agree, there should be a reduction in waste and better that meat eaten locally is locally produced however maybe a better way to deal with that and protect the competitive edge of local suppliers is to have a tax on imported meat products? I admit I don't really know how this would work. Perhaps it should be the same as milk is dealt with and imported meat should be restricted altogether.

I take on board your valid well made points. We are lucky that we can choose, others cannot and I think even if I was not a vegetarian I would still say that people should think carefully about the quantity and quality of meat they consume and generally have respect for its provenance, the animal and the production process.

Spartacus

February 15, 2013 4:31 pm

Martino

I think mine is a valid point bout the abattoir. It is a conflict of interest when HSSD official advice is that red meat is bad for public health. Also, it's not purely a vegetarian ideology point it applies to anything which benefits private enterprise but does not benefit the public. This is where the States should cut costs.

If the price of red meat goes up because of the cost of the abattoir being absorbed by the industry and passed on to the price charged to consumers, people would hopefully eat less red meat and then it would be a win win for the States because cancers and heart problems would reduce.

I am not convinced the States should be subsidising the dairy either, my feelings are that it should be and could be a profit making business, Guernsey milk and other produce are luxury products and should be sold at a price which reflects that, and surplus should be marketed properly and exported with pride.

I agree with your final point totally, any of these type of issues which cause people to think twice about what they eat is beneficial.

Martino

February 15, 2013 8:13 pm

Spartacus

There is no discernible health risk eating red meat if it is lean, clean, unadulterated and eaten in moderation in small quantities. We humans have been eating it like this for thousands of years and it is positively healthy for us this way when combined with veg, fruit, nuts, pulses etc.

It is only since we started mucking about with our meat, putting all sorts of nasties into it and eating it in portions and amounts that are clearly not good for us that these health problems have arisen.

worry

rosie

February 14, 2013 1:09 pm

Spatacus. Keeping fingers crossed that we might be merely suppressing the next ice age seems a tad rash to me. If the next ice age was on the way, the change would be happening slowly giving us time to adapt. The difference with what we are doing is the speed with which we are doing it and the concern is that we could be triggering a reaction for which there will be no time to react. But I agree that there are no easy answers and curtailing human activity will not happen without common consensus, or because we are forced to by circumstances. Adaption is crucial but not an excuse for avoiding mitigation. There is no need to worsen a situation if we can change behaviour to reduce the negative impacts, particularly if it can also be done in a way that could have positive impacts on peoples health and well being. So I totally agree that ‘global cultural changes in diet and food production would (also) make a real difference’.

It is interesting to see that you are willing to follow scientific consensus re the eating of red meat but less willing to follow scientific consensus regarding climate change. Would that be because the first supports your stance regarding being vegetarian? I agree with 99% of what you say about eating less meat etc however I do think that your (& the scientific communities) negative comments re meat are based on modern meat producing methods which require high in-puts of water and fossil fuel energy, and on feeding industrially grown grain to animals which produces a meat not so good for our health. The benefits of pasture fed animals by-passes those concerns while also at the same time produces positive benefits to the environment. Perennial grasses and herbs lock carbon into the soil, they withstand sudden droughts and floods, they prevent soil erosion ( a huge and largely unreported problem), they encourage a healthy community of bacteria and fungi in the soil that acts as a fertilizer and improves the health of the grazing animals, they naturally convert the energy from the sun into high quality protein without the need for any middlemen. And of course, the animal dung creates an important addition to the fertility of the soil.

If you really want to look at a way of farming that would be economical of space, produce healthy food and be positively beneficial to the environment, then look at Forest farming combined with pasture raised animals. Unfortunately, we are a million miles from going down this road primarily because there would be no big bucks in it. Our present farming methods are all about creating an economy. Our switch from using perennial plants to primarily annuals to grow food, supports an economy based on fossil fuels that are needed for the ploughing, planting and fertilizing of a brand new crop several times a year. Because this farming method weakens the soil, (it kills the bacteria, fungi and most other living critters) the plants that grow need support in the form of pesticides and herbicides, seen as an opportunity to grow a whole new array of economic businesses. And then of course, because we have concentrated crop production in certain areas of the globe (economies of scale making it cheaper), there are businesses that have grown up to act as commodity dealers and shippers etc. It is a food supply that is more about money than health.

Totally disagree with your comment that what we humans are doing is ‘natural’. We might only we tiddly little things in the wider scheme of things but we have already proven very well just how capable we are of causing havoc. We might not be ‘important’, indeed we are quite definitely expendable and the world would be a lot better of without us, but I don’t think we should underestimate our ability to change things, possibly beyond our control. The atmosphere is not huge. It was described to me by a meteorologist as being comparable to the thickness of his shirt if his body was the globe. In that case, it seems obvious that pumping that thin layer of atmosphere with greenhouse gases that were previously locked away in the ground will cause consequences.

I stuck this post at the bottom of the thread because the middle part of the thread has got so muddled up and I apologies for it being so long... too long! The links below include an opportunity to read the first chapter of the book I mentioned earlier. I really recommend reading at least that much.

Oh Dear

February 14, 2013 4:02 pm

That is easily the best post on this page Rosie.

I remain sceptical about global warming. I know that it is something that is happening. But I don't know how much contribution we've really made. The Earth would've naturally warmed without our presence.

It is possible that we've sped the process up but in time what we're seeing now would have occurred anyway (just at a later date, perhaps).

Ed

February 14, 2013 8:36 pm

Oh Dear

"The Earth would've naturally warmed up without our presence", if you are referring to climate change during the last 300-400 years, possibly not because the coldest part of the 'Little Ice Age', the Maunder Minimum,was experienced between 1650-1750, thereby meaning that, if the period circa 1750 wasn't characterised by the onset of industrial activity, the Earth may have contined to remain cold for some period of time. This thus corroborates (doesn't prove, though) Spartacus' theory that we may be suppressing a glacial period.

With regards to our degree of contribution to recent climate change, the period from 1750 to present day was characterised by an increase from 280-383 parts per million, which coincides with industrialisation. Also, the idea that this is human-generated climate change is strongly given credence by the fact that the period from 1950-2000 was the warmest 50 year period for 1,300 years and that this era was characterised by the emergence and flourishing of 'Tiger Economies' in Asia and Newly Industrialised Countries such as Brazil and thriving Western economies, which gave way to widespread affluence and thus use of devices that emit fossil fuels.

Furthermore, though there have been natural events that have been responsible for irregular weather conditions, there effects have been insignificant on the whole as the sulphur dioxide emitted by the volcanic eruptions of Tambora, Krakatau and Pinatubo created only temporary climatic cooling episodes.

rosie

February 14, 2013 11:27 pm

Why thank you Oh Dear for your kind words! Glad that you managed to wade through it all!

Re being sceptical about climate change. Learning about how thin the atmosphere is made a big difference to me. You look up at the sky and it looks like it goes on for ever because you can't see the edge of the atmosphere, but actually this little bubble of atmosphere that the world sits in is tiny. Chucking billions of years of previously locked away carbon ( a known GHG) into that thin envelope seems to be asking for trouble.

But at the end of the day, for me it comes down to Pascall's wager or in other words, risk management. There is far more for us to lose if we ignore the warnings and the scientists are proven right than if we listen to the scientists and they turn out to be wrong.

Spartacus

February 14, 2013 10:18 pm

Rosie

Good post. Lots of info there.

I don't think my slightly skeptical viewpoint is being rash really I just don't think there is much we can realistically do to change the situation. In any case ultimately what is the point in postponing the inevitable? How will failing to postpone global warming make it worse? There is real suffering occurring all over the world right now and that is the first priority in my opinion.

Unfortunately there is no scientific consensus regarding climate change. There may well be some benefits to the planet which are derived from meat farming which offsets the CO2 produced, however I still believe that eating meat increases an individual's carbon footprint. Correct me if I'm wrong.

I will support any local government initiatives aimed at protecting the environment, but I don't think any pensioners should be penalised for failing to separate their rubbish and I don't think anyone is going to tell the rich that they must stop taking their families on 6 holidays a year. These are small scale futile efforts.

We must agree to disagree on whether all human activity is natural! It's not supernatural is it? :-) That is a strange comment that the world would be better without us? Climate change and the wrath of mother nature would continue but no one would be worried about what to do!

Ultimately the sun will die and the world will be gone. If humans can devise a way to stop that in the next few million years that probably would be supernatural!